search for: mgmnt

...> as if VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM was off. Any serious reason why not just getting that 2 line patch allowing our arch code to force virtio to use the DMA API ? It's not particularly invasive and solves our problem rather nicely without adding overhead or additional knowledge to qemu/libvirt/mgmnt tools etc... that it doesn't need etc.... The guest knows it's going secure so the guest arch code can do the right thing rather trivially. Long term we should probably make virtio always use the DMA API anyway, and interpose "1:1" dma_ops for the traditional virtio case, that w...

...> as if VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM was off. Any serious reason why not just getting that 2 line patch allowing our arch code to force virtio to use the DMA API ? It's not particularly invasive and solves our problem rather nicely without adding overhead or additional knowledge to qemu/libvirt/mgmnt tools etc... that it doesn't need etc.... The guest knows it's going secure so the guest arch code can do the right thing rather trivially. Long term we should probably make virtio always use the DMA API anyway, and interpose "1:1" dma_ops for the traditional virtio case, that w...

...FORM was off. > > Any serious reason why not just getting that 2 line patch allowing our > arch code to force virtio to use the DMA API ? > > It's not particularly invasive and solves our problem rather nicely > without adding overhead or additional knowledge to qemu/libvirt/mgmnt > tools etc... that it doesn't need etc.... > > The guest knows it's going secure so the guest arch code can do the > right thing rather trivially. > > Long term we should probably make virtio always use the DMA API anyway, > and interpose "1:1" dma_ops for...

For v1.1, probably applies to v1.0 code pretty easily too: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot/rev/078d9dde99c8 The other rquota patches had authunix_create_default() call. Is this needed/useful? The client is now always created+destroyed for each quota lookup. I'd think it would be faster if it was created only once, but does it then break something? If the above isn't done, clnt_create()

On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 21:50 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > I re-read that discussion and I'm still unclear on the > original question, since I got several apparently > conflicting answers. > > I asked: > > Why isn't setting VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM on the > hypervisor side sufficient? I thought I had replied to this... There are a couple of reasons: -

On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 21:50 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > I re-read that discussion and I'm still unclear on the > original question, since I got several apparently > conflicting answers. > > I asked: > > Why isn't setting VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM on the > hypervisor side sufficient? I thought I had replied to this... There are a couple of reasons: -